SA draft redistribution published

5

The South Australian state redistribution was released two weeks ago, but with all of the other elections I have only now had time to complete my analysis. This wasn’t helped by the SA Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission (EDBC) not publishing a shapefile. I had hoped to move away from drawing my own boundary files and simply using the official shapefiles, but in this case it was necessary. So you can find the boundary files on my maps page.

This redistribution was relatively modest. No seats have been abolished, created or renamed. 27 out of 47 seats have been left completely untouched. 3.5% of the state’s voters have been moved into a different seat.

The biggest change was in Stuart, with 27.9% of the new seat’s electors previously residing in another seat. This electorate has lost the eastern half of Port Augusta to Giles and expanded south to take in areas closer to Stuart MP Geoff Brock’s old seat of Frome.

Generally some of the biggest changes have been in regional seats to the north of Adelaide, and in the northern suburbs of Adelaide.

The seat of Giles has changed quite significantly, with 24% of voters new to the seat. Giles previously covered Whyalla and half of Port Augusta, but has gained the remainder of Port Augusta and lost its outback territory, to become a much smaller seat geographically.

Stuart had covered Port Augusta at least as far back as 2002, but has now lost it entirely. After gaining Port Pirie in 2022, it has now expanded even further south, although the seat still stretches to the NT border and gained some more outback areas.

The neighbouring seat of Frome has 11.9% new voters, thanks to the seat expanding closer to the northern fringe of Adelaide. The northern Adelaide seats of Elizabeth and King also have about one eighth of their enrolment as new to the seat.

The EDBC is the only commission in the country to calculate its own margins when redistributions are published, which is a relic of the now-repealed fairness clause which required the EDBC to draw boundaries so it would produce a “fair” outcome where a party winning the 2PP would win a majority of seats.

But I prefer to do my own margins, since they have some differences in methodology. For example, they try to take account of population trends, which means that a faster-growing part of a seat will count more for the new margin than a slower-growing area. But I consider that a separate process. I don’t think you can necessarily assume newly-added voters in a fast-growing area will simply replicate the existing votes. So I simply try to show how the last election’s results would look on new boundaries.

The EDBC process can produce some weird results. It means that sometimes they will produce changed margins for seats that haven’t been redrawn at all. For example, Florey and Playford have been entirely untouched but the EDBC estimated the Labor margin would increase by 2.1% and 2.7% respectively. The EDBC also doesn’t attempt to calculate 2CP margins for non-classic seats. Everything is Liberal vs Labor.

For a bit of transparency, there were four seats where my calculations mixed together Labor vs Liberal areas and Independent vs Liberal areas. What I did was take the EDBC’s 2PP estimates per SA1 for the old seats where the final 2CP was Independent vs Liberal and take the difference between 2PP and 2CP and apply that to the inconsistent areas.

Of the 20 seats which had a change to their boundaries, the margin changed by at least 0.1% in eighteen seats, and by 1% or more in six seats. Those seats are:

  • King goes from 2.9% to 3.9% ALP
  • Heysen goes from 1.9% to 2.8% LIB
  • Morphett goes from 4.5 to 5.1% LIB
  • Frome cut from 8.1% to 3.3% LIB
  • Giles cut from 21% to 17.3% ALP
  • Black cut from 2.7% to 1.1% LIB

If you look at the uniform swing needed to deprive Labor of a majority, make the Liberals the biggest party, or give the Liberals a majority, none of these figures have changed. They are, respectively, 4%, 5.6% and 10%.

Okay just to finish up, this map can be toggled to show the old and draft boundaries for each area. Following this map, you can see a table of my margin estimates for each seat compared to the actual 2022 results, and a table of my estimated primary votes.

This is probably the last coverage I’ll give to South Australia until this redistribution process is finalised – for the rest of the week I’ll be back to covering the NSW council elections.

Margin estimates

Seat Old margin New margin
Adelaide 6.2% ALP 6.2% ALP
Badcoe 14.8% ALP 14.8% ALP
Black 2.7% LIB 1.1% LIB
Bragg 8.2% LIB 8.2% LIB
Chaffey 17.2% LIB 17.2% LIB
Cheltenham 19.1% ALP 19.1% ALP
Colton 4.8% LIB 4.8% LIB
Croydon 24.8% ALP 24.9% ALP
Davenport 3.4% ALP 3.4% ALP
Dunstan 0.5% LIB 0.5% LIB
Elder 5.6% ALP 5.6% ALP
Elizabeth 20.5% ALP 21.3% ALP
Enfield 14.5% ALP 14.5% ALP
Finniss 0.7% LIB vs IND 0.7% LIB vs IND
Flinders 3% LIB vs IND 3% LIB vs IND
Florey 12.8% ALP 12.8% ALP
Frome 8.1% LIB 3.3% LIB
Gibson 2.5% ALP 2.8% ALP
Giles 21% ALP 17.3% ALP
Hammond 5.1% LIB 5.1% LIB
Hartley 3.6% LIB 3.6% LIB
Heysen 1.9% LIB 2.8% LIB
Hurtle Vale 15.5% ALP 15.5% ALP
Kaurna 20.1% ALP 19.8% ALP
Kavel 25.4% IND vs LIB 26.3% IND vs LIB
King 2.9% ALP 3.9% ALP
Lee 11.2% ALP 11.5% ALP
Light 19.5% ALP 20.1% ALP
MacKillop 22.6% LIB 22.6% LIB
Mawson 13.8% ALP 13.8% ALP
Morialta 1.4% LIB 1.4% LIB
Morphett 4.5% LIB 5.1% LIB
Mount Gambier 13.1% IND vs LIB 13.1% IND vs LIB
Narungga 8.3% IND vs LIB 8% IND vs LIB
Newland 5.4% ALP 5.4% ALP
Playford 16.3% ALP 16.3% ALP
Port Adelaide 21.8% ALP 21.8% ALP
Ramsay 19.9% ALP 19.9% ALP
Reynell 16.7% ALP 17.8% ALP
Schubert 11.9% LIB 11.9% LIB
Stuart 17.1% IND vs LIB 16.4% IND vs LIB
Taylor 19.7% ALP 18.7% ALP
Torrens 10% ALP 10% ALP
Unley 2.2% LIB 2.2% LIB
Waite 4% ALP 4% ALP
West Torrens 18.8% ALP 18.8% ALP
Wright 11.9% ALP 12% ALP

Primary vote estimates

Seat ALP prim LIB prim GRN prim IND prim
Adelaide 40.6 39.8 13.5 6.1
Badcoe 50.0 29.2 11.4 9.4
Black 39.7 47.8 11.7 0.9
Bragg 28.6 53.8 12.6 5.0
Chaffey 19.9 54.6 6.0 19.4
Cheltenham 55.6 24.4 10.9 9.2
Colton 36.8 52.3 10.9 0.0
Croydon 60.9 22.4 12.4 4.4
Davenport 40.8 41.2 9.4 8.6
Dunstan 35.2 46.7 13.7 4.4
Elder 43.4 38.1 9.9 8.6
Elizabeth 55.3 18.9 7.8 18.0
Enfield 52.3 29.2 10.0 8.5
Finniss 22.9 43.1 6.8 27.2
Flinders 13.9 46.0 4.7 35.4
Florey 48.9 28.4 10.3 12.4
Frome 30.7 41.1 0.6 27.6
Gibson 40.0 42.4 11.2 6.4
Giles 51.0 18.5 3.8 26.6
Hammond 23.3 40.5 6.1 30.1
Hartley 37.4 51.0 11.6 0.0
Heysen 25.5 42.2 19.7 12.6
Hurtle Vale 53.8 26.6 8.2 11.4
Kaurna 55.9 21.1 10.9 12.1
Kavel 14.7 20.0 8.1 57.1
King 43.9 38.7 5.7 11.8
Lee 51.3 33.7 8.5 6.4
Light 57.5 23.1 6.8 12.5
MacKillop 20.0 62.3 0.0 17.6
Mawson 51.2 28.0 8.9 12.0
Morialta 36.1 46.2 10.3 7.4
Morphett 35.0 52.2 12.5 0.3
Mount Gambier 20.6 29.0 0.0 50.4
Narungga 20.0 30.0 0.0 50.0
Newland 36.9 34.6 5.8 22.8
Playford 53.5 24.7 9.5 12.3
Port Adelaide 58.4 22.6 10.1 8.9
Ramsay 60.0 21.4 7.2 11.4
Reynell 55.1 23.5 11.0 10.5
Schubert 22.7 51.4 10.2 15.6
Stuart 16.4 32.7 2.6 48.3
Taylor 52.6 21.9 6.0 19.6
Torrens 48.6 33.6 10.6 7.2
Unley 32.0 49.2 18.7 0.0
Waite 26.6 25.9 11.4 36.1
West Torrens 54.9 27.9 17.2 0.0
Wright 51.9 31.9 8.4 7.9
Liked it? Take a second to support the Tally Room on Patreon!
Become a patron at Patreon!

5 COMMENTS

  1. It appears that Labor’s margin in each seat is either being increased or remained at status quo. Liberal margins appear to be mixed in terms of how they’ve been changed.

  2. This will not help the libs.
    At the present time they are
    Plagued by disunity and face a popular government.
    Depending on the climate they could lose further seats esp in the Adelaide metro area

  3. Why is it that teals haven’t been successful in SA? A teal could’ve won Boothby in 2022, and they could’ve won Adelaide too if they targeted non-Coalition seats. But of course we all know the teals are just wolves in sheep’s clothing, they claim to be small-l-liberals but then spend all their time criticising the Liberals.

  4. @ np
    teals depends on tactical voting from Labor and Greens voters which is not going to happen in a seat that Labor targets like Boothby or Higgins. it is the same reason why Dai Le won because Liberal voters tactically voted for her knowing there is no chance of a Liberal victory.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here